View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Ron OwstonDean, York University Faculty of Education
4th International Conference on e-Learning and Distance Education -Riyadh
March 2015
Student engagement in blended learning: A three year study
My focus today…
1. What is blended learning?
3. What are findings of my study?
2. Why should it interest you?
2
http://todaysmeet.com/Riyadh
1. So what is blended learning?
SIRI help – what is blended learning?
Answer: …a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery and instruction…
Basic definition…
Source: Sloan-C report Blending-In
Another definition…
Blended learning is an approach to course design
that brings together the best of both face-to-face
and online learning.
Takes best advantage of both worlds
Source: Graham, 2006
Designing for Blended Learning
Face-to-face spontaneous ephemeral peer influence passion subjective
Online reflective permanent < intimidating reason > rigor
integrate
complement
Adapted from Norm Vaughan
Student perspective
2. Why should blended learning interest you?
Faculty perspective
Institutional perspective
9
Student Perspective: Blended learning clearly improves accessibility
Allows for flexibility in students’ study, work, and life balance
10
Students don’t want “all tech, all the time”
ECAR 2007 survey n= 27,675
Face-to-face40%
Blended48%
Fully online12%
Preference for blended course format at York University
N = 212134 courses
Students indicated strong satisfaction in my survey of Canadian 8 universities (n=2,714)
“Overall, I am quite satisfied with this [blended] course” –average 70% (range 65-100%)
http://irlt.yorku.ca/reports.html
I would take another course in the future that has both online and face-to-face components
[at York U]
24%20%
56%
Disagree/StronglyDisagree
Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree
N = 212134 courses
Students more satisfied with blended than fully online courses
0102030405060708090
100
39%
Fully online (N = 1,526)Blended (N = 485)
41%
11% 9%
Very SatisfiedUnsatisfiedSatisfied
Neutral
38%44%
9%
Very Unsatisfied
3% 5%1%
Perc
ent
Dziuban & Moskal, Univ. of Central Florida (n.d.)
Taking this course increased my interest in the material [York U]
57%23%
20%
%Strongly Agree/Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree/Disagree
BUT, what about improving learning?
9193
91 90
9491 9191
9794
91
97
92 9189
9390
92 92 92 91
75
80
85
90
95
100
Spring 01 Summer01
Fall01
Spring 02 Summer02
Fall02
Spring 03
% getting grades above C (N= 139,444 students) Dziuban & Moskal, Univ. of Central Florida (n.d.)
Blue = F2FGreen = BlendedPurple = Online
17
Same pattern continues at UCF…
Further evidence…
“Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”
(51 studies, effect size = +0.24)
US DoE, 2009
A student’s perspective…
A student’s perspective…
• Instant feedback• Shared understanding
of content• Flexible• Online flowed into
classroom• Any time, anywhere
Challenges for students
• Transition – from a passive to an active learning approach
• Study and time management skills, esp. low achievers
• Expecting that fewer classes equates to less work
• Accepting responsibility for completing individual & team activities
High satisfaction Get to know students better
Adds flexibility to your schedule
Faculty perspective on blended…
Reinvigorates teaching 23
Challenges for faculty
• Workload/tenure issues• Resistance to change-why
bother?• Time consuming initially• Managing with scarce
support for course redesign• Learning to use new
technologies
Institutional perspective…cost avoidance
Online and blended courses allowed UCF to avoid more than $7 million in construction costs $277,000 in annual operating costs (Hartman, 2007)
Our calculations show that 100 new courses will yield about $12 million in income and cost $1.5 million ROI 8:1(http://irlt.yorku.ca)
Improved classroom utilization
(Hartman, 2007)
Challenges for the institution
• Is blended learning consistent with vision?
• Is there an action plan?• Incentives in place?• Academic recognition in
place?• Is it sustainable?
3. What are findings of my 3 year study?
• 5 large (~300/students) first year Fine Arts courses surveyed, N=2094
• Asked for perceptions compared to other courses they’ve taken
• Scale 1 to 5 (SD, D, N, A, SA)
Findings for student involvement:as compared to other courses taken
Survey Questions Year I Year II Year III
Q4 (online and F2F components enhanced each other)
2.93 3.00 3.12
Q7 (clearly communicated expectations) n/a 3.39 3.69
Q11 (more engaged) 2.55 2.56 2.81
Q12 (likely to ask questions more) 2.60 2.56 2.68
Findings for student interactions in course
Survey Questions Year I Year II Year III
Q13 (increased amount of interaction among students)
2.34 2.57 2.53
Q14 (better quality of interaction among students) 2.33 2.59 2.64
Q16 (increased amount of interaction with instructor)
2.37 2.46 2.49
Q17 (better quality of interaction with instructor) 2.56 2.53 2.63
Findings for technology use
Survey Questions Year I Year II Year III
Q5 (easy to find course information on Moodle) 3.46 3.68 3.91
Q6 (Moodle resources were useful) 3.32 3.62 3.75
Q8 (technology for online activities was reliable) n/a 3.35 3.64
Q23 (technology interfered with learning) 2.18 2.60 2.54
Findings on student learning
Survey Questions Year I Year II Year III
Q2 (increased interest in subject) n/a 3.16 3.28
Q20 (improved understanding of concepts) 2.99 3.21 3.35
Q21 (developed better communication skills) n/a 2.60 2.76
Q22 (more opportunities to reflect) n/a 2.89 3.11
Blended learning can lead to greater student learning and engagement
BUT
The instructor role is critical
Are you willing to try blended learning?
Questions/comments?
In summary…
33
Recommended